Active cycle of breathing technique may reduce pulmonary complications after esophagectomy: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine whether the active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT) has an impact on postoperative pulmonary complication (PPC) after esophagectomy. METHODS: In this prospective randomized trial, patients who were candidates for esophagectomy were randomized into groups, wherein they received either ACBT (n = 146) or conventional chest physiotherapy (control group, n = 145) on postoperative days (POD) 1-3. The primary outcome was PPC. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), efficacy of airway clearance, and postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: After esophagectomy, the PPC rate was significantly lower in the ACBT group (15.2%) than in the control group (31.0%) (p = 0.001). The incidences of AL were 5.5% and 12.4% in the ACBT and control groups, respectively (p = 0.042). Mean hospital LOS was 12.3 days for the ACBT group and 16.8 days for the control group (p = 0.008). ACBT significantly increased the mean sputum wet weight (g) on POD 1-3 when compared with conventional therapy (POD 1 9.08 vs. 6.47, POD 2 16.86 vs. 10.92, POD 3 24.65 vs. 13.52, all p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that ACBT decreased the rates of PPC (odds ratio [OR] 0.403, p = 0.003), AL (OR 0.379，p = 0.038)，arrhythmia (OR 0.397, p = 0.028), and bronchoscopy aspiration (OR 0.362, p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: ACBT is an effective airway clearance technique that significantly reduces the incidence of PPC after esophagectomy. ACBT could also significantly reduce both AL and LOS.

Effect of the Active Cycle of Breathing Technique on Perioperative Outcome in Individuals With Esophagectomy: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

Background: The effect of active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT) on EC patients has not been well elucidated. In this research, we aim to explore the effect of ACBT on the perioperative outcomes in patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy. Methods: Patients who underwent esophagectomy in an academic institution from December 2017 to July 2019 were included in this study. In a quasi-experimental study, participants were randomly divided into an experimental group (active cycle of breathing technique, n = 107) and an observational group (n = 106) by drawing lots. The chi-squared test, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, Logistic regression analysis, and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to analyze data. A two-sided P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The primary observational endpoint was the mean weight of the sputum. Other outcomes included the six-min-walk test (6MWT), Borg scale, anastomotic leakage, and the length of hospital stay. Results: 95 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery, and 118 patients received open surgery. There were 16 patients with anastomotic leakage in the present study, and we found that patients in the observational group had higher odds of anastomotic leakage. The results showed that the mean weight of the sputum in the observation group was lighter than that of the experimental group. After esophagectomy, the experimental group had better outcomes than the observation group (Borg scale: 2.448 vs. 1.547; 6-MWT: 372.811 vs. 425.355m, all P < 0.05). The mean length of hospital stay was longer in the observation group (17.953 days) than that in the experimental group (12.037 days, P = 0.01). We also found that the observational group had a higher discharge ratio over 2 weeks in all cohort (adjusted OR 2.487, 95% confidence intervals 1.147-5.392, P = 0.021). Conclusion: Active cycle of breathing technique may improve the perioperative outcomes and decrease the length of hospital stay after surgery in patients with esophageal cancer. However, we need more researches to validate these findings.